What should go into JSX 2.0?

#1

Post by bpierre » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 1:54 PM UTC

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#2

Post by ythl » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

JSX? Typescript? What are you a noob? That was so 2016.

Come on, get with it - JSX 2.0, TypeScript 2.0, etc. is what real web devs use. That other crap is obsolete. This is 2017.

Edit: I'm parodying this:

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2...

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#3

Post by JBiserkov » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

"What should go into JSX 2.0?" would be a much clearer title outside of the context of the GitHub issue.

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#4

Post by blablabla123 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

JBiserkov wrote: post #3

"What should go into JSX 2.0?" would be a much clearer title outside of the context of the GitHub issue.

Yup, even the issues not marked controversial seem so to me. I think JSX is quite nice but it has its limits/annoyances. One is obviously that it's not real HTML5.

I would like to see a successor that is more like HTML5 without the X. No idea how that could be realized though... ;)

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#5

Post by sctb » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

JBiserkov wrote: post #3

"What should go into JSX 2.0?" would be a much clearer title outside of the context of the GitHub issue.

Thank you, we've updated the title.

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#6

Post by arnold_palmur » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 2:57 PM UTC

I definitely think fragments should be an added feature of a 2.0 version of JSX - just take a look at this Github issue that continues to house active discussion now for 2+ years.

https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/2127

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#7

Post by hex13 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:05 PM UTC

I wish it could be possible to write this:

const animal = "cat"; equivalent to:

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#8

Post by skosch » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

hex13 wrote: post #7

I wish it could be possible to write this: const animal = "cat"; equivalent to:

How about ? Because that should already work, no?

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#9

Post by alistairjcbrown » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:14 PM UTC

skosch wrote: post #8

hex13 wrote: post #7

I wish it could be possible to write this: const animal = "cat"; equivalent to:

How about ? Because that should already work, no?

You'd have to spread in the object, right?

Re: What should go into JSX 2.0?

#10

Post by spicyj » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

arnold_palmur wrote: post #6

I definitely think fragments should be an added feature of a 2.0 version of JSX - just take a look at this Github issue that continues to house active discussion now for 2+ years. https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/2127

Yes, this is often-requested. We don't necessarily need to change JSX to add this to React though. With our current implementation it's a pain to support it but we're working on it.